Financial Fair Play (FFP)

[Gyros Peter]

Not reporting promotion bonuses is not just against PSR it is also tax evasion and illegal. As regards stopping clubs competing see my post above. It is only a few years ago Wolves, Forest, Toon, Villa and Brighton were in the Championship together. 3 of those teams were in Europe last season and it looks like two will be in Europe again this year. 3 finished top half last season, one in the top 4 and this year it looks like 2 will finish top half, there is a good chance it will be three and the likelihood is that one of those teams will also be in the top 4

One has a homegrown talent bringing in 100m and a fantastic manager which has them punching, the other is owned by a state and circumventing the rules.

 

[Est.1865]

Nail on head.

So many fans blame FFP/PSR/Refs/VAR and anything else they can come up with to justify why their club is not doing well and it is usually down to poor management

I would still like to blame those too, thanks

 

[Gyros Peter]

Nail on head.

So many fans blame FFP/PSR/Refs/VAR and anything else they can come up with to justify why their club is not doing well and it is usually down to poor management

Or not fiddling the books as well as those that are. It's a load of old shit this, regardless of how badly we've been run.

Edit: and f***, I've been sucked into posting in this thread again, goodbye!

 

[youreds1986]

Let's be right, if it were Derby fans acting like this we would be pissing ourselves.

We f**ked up. We paid the price.

Now can we shut up about FFP and win some f***ing games?

 

[Robertson]

Nail on head.

So many fans blame FFP/PSR/Refs/VAR and anything else they can come up with to justify why their club is not doing well and it is usually down to poor management

Except in our case it genuinely is the refs

 

[Flaggers]

Let me get this right:

By obliging us to sell our best players at a lower price we make less profit.

To have to do this repeatedly will make is less sustainable than if we were to maximise profit.

And the regulations requiring this are the "Profit and Sustainability Rules".

Right.

 

[Notcher]

Nail on head.

So many fans blame FFP/PSR/Refs/VAR and anything else they can come up with to justify why their club is not doing well and it is usually down to poor management

In our case both things are true.

 

[Shearstone]

Let me get this right:

By obliging us to sell our best players at a lower price we make less profit.

To have to do this repeatedly will make is less sustainable than if we were to maximise profit.

And the regulations requiring this are the "Profit and Sustainability Rules".

Right.

But we only had to sell a player at all is because we spent too much.

That's the initial panels view.

Tbf after sobering up slightly I think had the appeal been a re-hearing of the case we may have got a point back for that but it wasn't a re-hearing and ad such the initial commission didn't act incorrectly in how they interpreted and administered the case so getting nothing back is fair.

 

[Notcher]

Let me get this right:

By obliging us to sell our best players at a lower price we make less profit.

To have to do this repeatedly will make is less sustainable than if we were to maximise profit.

And the regulations requiring this are the "Profit and Sustainability Rules".

Right.

Checks notes:

....Correct.

Now shut up and take your medicine.

 

[Mr. Blonde]

But that doesn't take into account the incredible spend amount required to be competitive in the PL when using a rolling 3 year period

I agree but then did we really need to sign Josh Bowler, Ui-jo Hwang and Brandon Aguilera and immediately loan them out?

I know their fees were probably a drop in the ocean but you can't say we didn't spend money unnecessarily

 

[Redemption]

The issue is not about Profitability and Sustainability per se, but in a given time period. The context of time is critical.

 

[IvorThirst]

anything from the Trust and the valuable evidence they submitted ?

 

[adamthered]

The rules are far from perfect and it is very easy to see weaknesses in all aspects of it but the rules still allow clubs to get promoted and compete. It is only about 7 years ago that all of Newcastle, Wolves, Villa, Brighton and Forest were in the Championship together. Newcastle, Villa, Brighton and Wolves all look like established PL sides now and Forest are working through the initial difficult couple of years trying to establish themselves. When we came up we avoided relegation on the last day and had the benefit of the goal against Sheffield United. Toon also came very close to relegation. You guys are probably doing better than we did. Also, this season 3 of the teams competed in European competition with Toon in the CL.

Not forgetting all bar one had some form of parachute payment to fall back on

 

[Villa_Fan]

Fair enough, but I assume you are aware that Villa are not finding FFP easy to remain compliant with?

I am aware of that, Villa has requested the 105m be increased to 130m. The issue is that many clubs (Villa being one) do not want to comply with them, but that doesn't make the rules difficult to comply with, you just have to operate within a certain budget and can't develop the club as you would like to. I don't agree with the PSR rules but all clubs have signed up to them. Only Villa, Man Utd and Man City voted against the anchoring of spend last week. The majority of clubs keep voting for these spending restrictions which us fans do not want

 

[Berkshire Red]

I am aware of that, Villa has requested the 105m be increased to 130m. The issue is that many clubs (Villa being one) do not want to comply with them, but that doesn't make the rules difficult to comply with, you just have to operate within a certain budget and can't develop the club as you would like to. I don't agree with the PSR rules but all clubs have signed up to them. Only Villa, Man Utd and Man City voted against the anchoring of spend last week. The majority of clubs keep voting for these spending restrictions which us fans do not want

This keeps getting repeated but isn't actually true. Forest didn't sign up to them, we weren't asked.

Unless you count getting promoted as implicitly accepting them?

 

[Flaggers]

This keeps getting repeated but isn't actually true. Forest didn't sign up to them, we weren't asked.

Unless you count getting promoted as implicitly accepting them?

I guess the argument is that we're happy to accept the financial rewards that come with promotion to the Premier League..

 

[Villa_Fan]

This keeps getting repeated but isn't actually true. Forest didn't sign up to them, we weren't asked.

Unless you count getting promoted as implicitly accepting them?

Yes, getting promoted implicitly accepts them as they are the rules of the PL and it was the original 20 clubs that voted them in. these included West Brom, QPR, Stoke, Reading, Norwich and Wigan. Villa voted against it at the time and we have to accept it too. Only last week Forest voted for the introduction of anchoring to limit spend on transfers and all clubs going forward will have to accept these rules

 

[Est.1865]

I guess the argument is that we're happy to accept the financial rewards that come with promotion to the Premier League..

Yeah you know what you are getting. Combination of factors.

 

[Redemption]

This keeps getting repeated but isn't actually true. Forest didn't sign up to them, we weren't asked.

I cant recall where I read this but some documents on EPL governance, so at each AGM of the EPL, which happens in early June, the Rules, as amended by that AGM, are voted on in total.

 

[Villa_Fan]

I cant recall where I read this, but at each AGM of the EPL, which happens in early June, the Rules, as amended by that AGM, are voted on in total.

I think the vast majority of owners of PL clubs are happy to have these restrictions on spend to have an excuse to hide behind when they don't keep splashing crazy amounts of money on transfers and wages. Owners can let the fans believe they would spend more if they were allowed to. If clubs really wanted FFP radically changed it would change. The 20 clubs in the PL own the PL, it is easy to change things if there is enough support for it

 

[Redemption]

I think the vast majority of owners of PL clubs are happy to have these restrictions on spend to have an excuse to hide behind when they don't keep splashing crazy amounts of money on transfers and wages. Owners can let the fans believe they would spend more if they were allowed to. If clubs really wanted FFP radically changed it would change. The 20 clubs in the PL own the PL, it is easy to change things if there is enough support for it

Yes, probably so.

As I've said on this thread on many occasions, the 'other 14' love the 'big 6' because they attract the £$¥€.

 

[eyupmeduck]

I am aware of that, Villa has requested the 105m be increased to 130m. The issue is that many clubs (Villa being one) do not want to comply with them, but that doesn't make the rules difficult to comply with, you just have to operate within a certain budget and can't develop the club as you would like to. I don't agree with the PSR rules but all clubs have signed up to them. Only Villa, Man Utd and Man City voted against the anchoring of spend last week. The majority of clubs keep voting for these spending restrictions which us fans do not want

I point to this bit of the hearing. I do so without any intent to have conflict with you as I enjoy reading your posts btw and I do like Villa (apart from for 2 games a year) but the issue is that the rules may not be different in wording but they ARE applied differently for different clubs.

Its inconsistent that Fulham, Bournemouth and others have been able to exclude promotion costs.

Its inconsistent that other clubs have been able to extend deadlines so that transfers fit psr.

Its inconsistent that other clubs have been granted business plans to ovoid psr breaches.

Its inconsistent that some clubs have used covid write offs in the hundreds of millions yet we were allowed £2.5m which if you think about it is the equivalent of saying that covid effected us by the income of a single match (Everton would need to play for the next 20 years to earn their losses claimed from matchday revenue).

Its inconsistent that you are allowed to appeal but also not question the wording of the appeal.

The only consistency is that us and Everton committed our offences at the time that the unstructured and inadequate governance structure of the EPL was/is under governmental pressure because it is widely recognised what a rubbish job they have been doing for some time.

The whole thing frankly has been a joke. I hope its not going to be one that results in us losing our top flight status but the rules that were agreed prior to us being a member are not and in my view won't be applied properly or consistently and therefore it renders them pointless/ineffective imho.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

[forestzoe]

I've just started to read their submitted report. Am I missing something here? Surely they mean last day of winter 23 window? If basic errors like this were in the submitted version I'm not sure I'll finish reading it

Sent from my SM-S928B using Tapatalk

 

[isaacs]

Right, hopefully thats the last time i ever have to read financial punishment and appeal documents. KC talk in general just isn't a good read is it?

Roll on Saturday, and roll on the end of this retched season.

 

[Redemption]

I've just started to read their submitted report. Am I missing something here? Surely they mean last day of winter 23 window? If basic errors like this were in the submitted version I'm not sure I'll finish reading it

Sent from my SM-S928B using Tapatalk

Yes, that's what I read it as too.